Whose got your vote for President in 2016?

[Pizzo]

None of that actually addresses my assertion. When 2 options exist, opposition to 1 necessarily provides nonmaterial support to the other.

 

[The Gold Standard]

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. That was not Ron's position at all. Try again.

Actually, it was. If I recall correctly, he played the politics game. He wanted to have the federal government define life at conception and to overturn Roe v. Wade, but he never proposed the federal government have an actual policy on the issue. It was always up to the states.

 

[CCTelander]

Are you 12? Or just ignorant of Weld's CURRENT position on guns? Are you ignorant of the fact that Johnson has said multiple times now that he would sign the TPP legislation? Are you unaware that Weld was the co-chair of the Council on Foreign Relation's 3 country task force to create a "North American Community"?

And...

VPs don't sign legislation; Presidents do.

Hmmmm.

For the record, I don't think Johnson is much of a libertarian either, and don't support him or, for that matter, anyone else. But this level of sanctimonious hypocrisy is hard to ignore.

 

[Ender]

She helped write it, dude. lol

Going into the West Virginia primary, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come out in opposition to a "lame duck" vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This takes her beyond her previous statements mildly opposing TPP. Clinton also made a strong statement criticizing our country's trade agreements in general.

As reported in The Hill, in "Clinton opposes TPP vote in the lame-duck session," Clinton replied to a questionnaire from the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign, which consists of more than 25 labor, environmental and human rights organizations. When asked, "If elected President, would you oppose holding a vote on the TPP during the 'lame duck' session before you take office?" she replied, "I have said I oppose the TPP agreement -- and that means before and after the election."

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/it...s-no-tpp-fundamentally-rethink-trade-policies

Progressives praised Hillary Clinton for sharpening her opposition to an Asia-Pacific trade agreement, calling her position necessary to kill the far-reaching deal.

Several left-leaning groups said the Democratic presidential nominee's vow to oppose a lame-duck vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is her toughest pronouncement yet against moving the 12-nation agreement through Congress before President Obama leaves office.

"These were Hillary Clinton's strongest words yet against the TPP," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

"For the first time, Clinton signaled she will personally work to kill the corporate-written TPP if it comes up after the election in an unaccountable lame-duck Congress," Green said.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/t...clintons-stronger-stance-against-the-tpp-deal

Clinton supported the trade deal in principle when she was a member of President Barack Obama's cabinet but has shifted to vocal opposition during her presidential campaign. Opposing the TPP has become a central cause for Sanders fans, with "No TPP" signs widespread inside the DNC hall this week. (It was one of the few party platform fights the Sanders camp lost, though that was at the behest of Obama rather than Clinton.) It's the rare place where the Sanders crowd finds itself aligned with Donald Trump, who has regularly assailed the TPP and other free trade deals during his presidential campaign. "We all know it is gonna happen if she won," Trump warned during a press conference Wednesday, playing off McAuliffe's comments. It was enough of a concern for the Clinton campaign that immediately after selecting Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia as Clinton's running mate, the campaign told the media that Kaine, who had previously hedged on the TPP, was now firmly opposed to the deal.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/hillary-clinton-tpp-terry-mcauliffe

 

[LibertyEagle]

And...

Hmmmm.

For the record, I don't think Johnson is much of a libertarian either, and don't support him or, for that matter, anyone else. But this level of sanctimonious hypocrisy is hard to ignore.

Nor will you find me saying anywhere that Weld does sign legislation. But, I do find it interesting that Johnson would go to such lengths to demand that Weld be his VP, when he damn well knew he was a globalist CFR member and a gun-grabber. I would think that would concern you too.

Beyond that, Johnson has said multiple times that he would sign the TPP legislation. Last time I checked, Johnson was running for President.

 

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/it...s-no-tpp-fundamentally-rethink-trade-policies



http://thehill.com/policy/finance/t...clintons-stronger-stance-against-the-tpp-deal

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/hillary-clinton-tpp-terry-mcauliffe

Check her position before Bernie started doing so well. Bernie was against it; she was FOR it.

 

[Ender]

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. That was not Ron's position at all. Try again.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Abortion laws should be a state-level choice
It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

At the GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, on Nov 28, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what a woman would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”

For many years, Ron Paul has been speaking up for babies’ rights. He passionately defends those who cannot speak for themselves because they haven’t been born yet.

In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade”, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure”.

At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

 

[LibertyEagle]

Actually, it was. If I recall correctly, he played the politics game. He wanted to have the federal government define life at conception and to overturn Roe v. Wade, but he never proposed the federal government have an actual policy on the issue. It was always up to the states.

You're wrong. Try again.

 

[Ender]

Check her position before Bernie started doing so well. Bernie was against it; she was FOR it.

You mean she flip-flops like Trump? Whooda thunk.

 

[Ender]

You're wrong. Try again.

Read the above post and try again.

 

[Origanalist]

No logic will keep people from repeating the same nonsense over and over.

 

[liveandletlive]

I can't pin down Trump on one policy, you can ask Trump something and 5 minutes later he will say the opposite. You can ask Ron Paul a question and 50 years later he would have the same answer. Trump is literally the opposite of Ron Paul, I bet every single person who does support Trump does so by pretending to know what his actual platform is. This bull$#@! that Trump's heart grew 3 times and he stopped being a pay for access crony capitalist needs to stop now.

If he actually had a consistent platform I would probably support the guy. Its about trust with these guys, not specific policies. No candidate is perfect. I am not asking Trump to be a libertarian. Rand wasn't pure like that either, neither is Ron. Trump just isnt trustworthy or believable. He's a used car salesman with a short fuse.

 

[The Gold Standard]

You're wrong. Try again.

Read the above post and try again.

Oops.

 

[undergroundrr]

Probably Gary Johnson, because he's a libertarian. And you shouldn't let a good cake go to waste.

 

[69360]

Are you 12? Or just ignorant of Weld's CURRENT position on guns? Are you ignorant of the fact that Johnson has said multiple times now that he would sign the TPP legislation? Are you unaware that Weld was the co-chair of the Council on Foreign Relation's 3 country task force to create a "North American Community"?

They aren't criminals like Clinton and Trump. That's good enough. It's not like Johnson has any chance of winning anyway, so him disagreeing with your pet issues is irrelevant.

 

[undergroundrr]

Nor will you find me saying anywhere that Weld does sign legislation. But, I do find it interesting that Johnson would go to such lengths to demand that Weld be his VP, when he damn well knew he was a globalist CFR member and a gun-grabber. I would think that would concern you too.

Beyond that, Johnson has said multiple times that he would sign the TPP legislation. Last time I checked, Johnson was running for President.

You lack credibility when you don't acknowledge that Johnson has been clear about being anti-gun control and skeptical about the TPP that he's (and you have) never read. You repeat these same three things over and over again although they're not as cut-and-dried as you present them. But it only serves to highlight how gorgeously libertarian his other 150 policy positions are.

The only solid thing the #NeverJohnson caucus has is that he isn't going to overturn the CRA if he takes over the oval office. Well, Ron Paul said he didn't like it, but he also didn't say it was on his agenda to overturn it.

You've harped on the word "globalist" out of context until it means nothing, like the way people use "racist" or "fascist." You just sound like you've never travelled out of the country.

 

[twomp]

I like how the Trump trolls can talk about Weld and his polices but conveniently leave out Pence and his support for TPP. But that is too much thinking for them.... Trump picked a neo-con for his running mate and its still ALL GOOD!! Trump trolls are hypocrites.

 

[CPUd]

I like how the Trump trolls can talk about Weld and his polices but conveniently leave out Pence and his support for TPP. But that is too much thinking for them.... Trump picked a neo-con for his running mate and its still ALL GOOD!! Trump trolls are hypocrites.

Well, Pence would be the VP and can't sign legislation, so it doesn't really matter what crazy shit he's come out in favor of over the years.

 

[4_God_N_Country]

Donald doesnt have a problem with hiring illegals. But they better be hot....and blonde, baby.

I dont think anyone would have a problem with that. Where can I start digging the tunnel?

 

[4_God_N_Country]

Probably Gary Johnson, because he's a libertarian. And you shouldn't let a good cake go to waste.

Good one

Trump is more Libertarian than Johnson.